D&D 5E You can't necessarily go back

[Emerikol]

I take no offense, and that's exactly what I've been saying all the time. The dissociation is there. They might be less clear than in other editions, or maybe they arise less frequently (although being able to survive a volley of crossbow bolts happen really often, so does being chewed by dragons). You don't care about them, because you "feel" it's not that important (although the gorilla is there). Exactly the same happens with 4e. It's only in a different magnitude. You find impossible to avoid the gorilla in 4e's room, because it's too big and clear for you, but other players don't have such problem with it, and they can keep counting balls passing between players, without seeing or being disturbed by the gorilla.

Yeah the word dissociation is one we are struggling with for lack of a better term. For me it moves me from actor to author or director. I wish there was a mutually agreeable word for the specific things I am talking about. Of course anything could be dissociative to the right person. But what I'm talking about is a class of thing which is specific but which only really bothers some people in a dissociative way. The original word I used was metagame dissonance. I picked up dissociative mechanics because of the blog and hey he was first.

So if you have a word for it I'm fine within reason. But I will argue that what I speak of is a distinct class of mechanics. Its a class that includes martial daily powers, fate points, and action points but does not include hit points, armor class, etc... Give me a name for the set of these items. I've heard the term plot coupon used as well. I honestly am not trying to speak pejoratively so much as I am to be clear on what I'm talking about.

There are plenty of things that have taken on a meaning over the years but originally didn't really make sense. Why do they call the freeway a parkway in some circles? Do you park on it? I will say that these mechanics of which I speak are dissociative for me. So calling them such is of course accurate when thinking about me. But since dissociation is subjective, nothing can be called such in an absolute sense.

I do feel that in the case of 4e they included these things on a large scale. I'm not saying there is nothing in 3e that fits this bill but if so it is very rare. In 5e we already have a few things.

I do think that denying that there is a pretty sizable group of people that take issue with a particular class of mechanics for immersion reasons (right or wrong in your mind) is crazy. Since immersion is subjective anything could in theory be dissociative.

So in closing, there is a set of mechanics A such that a large group finds them dissociative. Set A includes some things and not others (see above). Set A is definable and distinct. Set A may not matter a bit to you nor may Set A have any dissociative effects on you at all but it does on many of us.

 

[Imaro]

The player knows which condition his character *wont have*. He knows he wont be "active". He'll be disabled, or dying, or dead. He knows he won't stand a single hit more, while his character doesn't have that knowledge.

Now who is moving goalposts... the original assertion was that the player knew what condition his character would have if he is hit. He doesn't, plain and simple and neither would the PC. Now... the player and PC both know he will be hurt in a broad sense (take damage) if he is hit... so you're example proves nothing and is actually a totally different discussion.

I have seen players do that too. In various editions, and games. I happen to see it more in, actually, narrative (and thus dissociative) game systems, from players that think the story is more important than his character. I've done seppukku with a character, actually.

So if you know this is possible and a decision of the player why does whether he has 1 hp or not matter... your example is of you commiting seppuku... killing your chracter, whether it's a narrativist system or not, dead is dead. In fact I would almost argue that the easy access to ressurection in 3.x D&D would facilitate these types of actions even better if you didn't want to permanently kill your character.

However, that *Some* players act this, or that way, does not proves that the *system* is dissociative or not. In D&D, when you (the player) know your character has 1 hp left, and you (the player) know he is going to take 2d6 damage when he drops from the bridge to attack the goblin and save your wizard mate, you are actually in a dissociated situation. You *know* your character will fall unconscius if he try (and won't be able to attack the goblin), while your character doesn't. It does not really matter what you decide to do, the dissociation is there. If you choose not to jump, because you know your mate will die, and you decide to, say, throw a stone to the goblin to try to taunt him, you are using the info in your favor. If you choose to jump, you are staying in character, but you know something your character doesn't: that the action is going to fail. Your character doesn't know that, because he dosen't know he is exactly at 1hp.

First let me state this upfront I'm not arguing for or against dissaociative mechanics... that's why I stayed away from the word. What I was arguing against was faulty logic or misrepresentation in statements made about hit points, as well as your statement that mechanics don't force people to do anything... so I'm not exactly sure what the above paragraph has to do with what I said.

Call that "drama" , "fate" or "action" point a "willpower" point. The mechanic stays exactly the same. Is it dissociative?

Drama points and fate points can allow you to change minor details in scenes... that's not willpower unless you're playing Mage the Ascension.

 

[triqui]

Now who is moving goalposts... the original assertion was that the player knew what condition his character would have if he is hit. He doesn't, plain and simple and neither would the PC. Now... the player and PC both know he will be hurt in a broad sense (take damage) if he is hit... so you're example proves nothing and is actually a totally different discussion.

No. The original assertion is that the Player has information that the Character does not. AND he DOES. The player knows for sure that the PC will go down if hit (the original pemerton's sentence say "disabled"). The character doesn't know that. There's no reason the character could think "this" next strike is different from the others he has received before.

So if you know this is possible and a decision of the player why does whether he has 1 hp or not matter... your example is of you commiting seppuku... killing your chracter, whether it's a narrativist system or not, dead is dead. In fact I would almost argue that the easy access to ressurection in 3.x D&D would facilitate these types of actions even better if you didn't want to permanently kill your character.

Emphasis mine. That for a (small??) subset of player it doesn't matter, does not mean it does not matter in general. That's a fallacy of hastly generalization. For a *lot* of players it does matter, and some (most??) players will not jump to attack the goblin when if they know it's a auto-fail because he will fall unconscoius no matter of what.

Those players (be it a majority, or not) are taking the decision based on metagame. They know something they character's don't (that they'll fall unconscious if they try)

Drama points and fate points can allow you to change minor details in scenes... that's not willpower unless you're playing Mage the Ascension.

Fine. Let's reduce the example to Action Points. You said they are dissociative. Let's rename them "willpower" (or "adrenaline" or whatever). The game mechanic stays exactly the same, you change only the name. Is it dissociative?

 

[Hussar]

Imaro - are you really, really going to be that pedantic as to strongly draw the line between disabled and dead? Really? The point isn't whether or not the PC is dead. The point is that the player absolutely knows that the next hit will take him out of combat, and the PC can never know that.

Or, hell, let's specify edition - we're playing Basic/Expert D&D or AD&D without the optional death's door rules. Does that satisfy you?

------------

On a side note, watching the tap dancing and mental contortions people are willing to do in order not to see the gorilla in the room is fascinating. No matter what, you will never, ever be able to make people admit to seeing that gorilla.

 

[Imaro]

Imaro - are you really, really going to be that pedantic as to strongly draw the line between disabled and dead? Really? The point isn't whether or not the PC is dead. The point is that the player absolutely knows that the next hit will take him out of combat, and the PC can never know that.

Or, hell, let's specify edition - we're playing Basic/Expert D&D or AD&D without the optional death's door rules. Does that satisfy you?

------------

On a side note, watching the tap dancing and mental contortions people are willing to do in order not to see the gorilla in the room is fascinating. No matter what, you will never, ever be able to make people admit to seeing that gorilla.

You do realize you can still act when disabled right? That seems like a pretty big difference to me since it can mean life or death for a character. You get a partial action which, surprise...surprise... allows you to make an attack if you want so you aren't out of combat.

As far as being pedantic, please don't try to play that card when every crticism of 4e is placed under a microscope and scrutinized for the smallest mistake in words or rules knowledge when making general sweeping statements... so in other words people have been playing that game for a while now, don't act like it's something new.

 

[Imaro]

No. The original assertion is that the Player has information that the Character does not. AND he DOES. The player knows for sure that the PC will go down if hit (the original pemerton's sentence say "disabled"). The character doesn't know that. There's no reason the character could think "this" next strike is different from the others he has received before.

Please go back and read the post I responded to originally... a few minutes ago you were quoting exact words... now it's generalizations... again, where'd those goalposts go??

Emphasis mine. That for a (small??) subset of player it doesn't matter, does not mean it does not matter in general. That's a fallacy of hastly generalization. For a *lot* of players it does matter, and some (most??) players will not jump to attack the goblin when if they know it's a auto-fail because he will fall unconscoius no matter of what.

Those players (be it a majority, or not) are taking the decision based on metagame. They know something they character's don't (that they'll fall unconscious if they try)

You can't prove that it does matter "in general" (whatever that means). The only thing that's true is what I said... it's not a mechanic that forces one to leave the viewpoint of his character when choosing how to interact with it... is this right or wrong??

Fine. Let's reduce the example to Action Points. You said they are dissociative. Let's rename them "willpower" (or "adrenaline" or whatever). The game mechanic stays exactly the same, you change only the name. Is it dissociative?

No, no I didn't and now I know you aren't reading what I actually wrote. I said it was a metagame mechanic that forces one to step out of the viewpoint of his character in order to make use of. The choice to use an action point doesn't fit into the viewpoint of the character... it is based upon a player decision. I'm not talking about whether the effect maps to reality or not I am speaking to the choice of when, where and how to use it. I think the issue is that you are confusing my arguments with some of the others you've been responding to.

 

[Hussar]

You do realize you can still act when disabled right? That seems like a pretty big difference to me since it can mean life or death for a character. You get a partial action which, surprise...surprise... allows you to make an attack if you want so you aren't out of combat.

As far as being pedantic, please don't try to play that card when every crticism of 4e is placed under a microscope and scrutinized for the smallest mistake in words or rules knowledge when making general sweeping statements... so in other words people have been playing that game for a while now, don't act like it's something new.

Oh come on. Now we're down to analyzing ZERO HP? Really? And, again, you decided to play mix and match editions because pre-3e doesn't have disabled at all. You're dying or dead at zero, depending on which optional rules you use.

So, now instead of actually responding to the point of the criticism, we're going to go with the tiny little corner case where a PC, in a single edition, with rules that don't apply to any other edition, takes EXACTLY enough damage to reduce him or her to zero HP?

And you're going to say that this isn't overly pedandic?

 

[Imaro]

Oh come on. Now we're down to analyzing ZERO HP? Really? And, again, you decided to play mix and match editions because pre-3e doesn't have disabled at all. You're dying or dead at zero, depending on which optional rules you use.

So, now instead of actually responding to the point of the criticism, we're going to go with the tiny little corner case where a PC, in a single edition, with rules that don't apply to any other edition, takes EXACTLY enough damage to reduce him or her to zero HP?

And you're going to say that this isn't overly pedandic?

It's not, I specified which edition I was talking about... you're wrong by the rules but won't admit it. here's an idea... how about we stop generalizing and look at the editions sepoerately instead of trying to lump all past editions together when a statement doesn't apply to all of them.

 

[Emerikol]

No. The original assertion is that the Player has information that the Character does not. AND he DOES. The player knows for sure that the PC will go down if hit (the original pemerton's sentence say "disabled"). The character doesn't know that. There's no reason the character could think "this" next strike is different from the others he has received before.

Look. It is absolutely the case that a person can know they are reaching the end of thier ability to defend. That if another blow lands they are going down. Nothing in the characters mind is different than the players.

Emphasis mine. That for a (small??) subset of player it doesn't matter, does not mean it does not matter in general. That's a fallacy of hastly generalization. For a *lot* of players it does matter, and some (most??) players will not jump to attack the goblin when if they know it's a auto-fail because he will fall unconscoius no matter of what.

Those players (be it a majority, or not) are taking the decision based on metagame. They know something they character's don't (that they'll fall unconscious if they try)

They do not. You are equating numbers which we use to communicate status between player and character with dissociative mechanics. My character doesn't run past the enemy because he knows it's too risky. That he is close to death and if he tries he might go down. The character knows that.

Fine. Let's reduce the example to Action Points. You said they are dissociative. Let's rename them "willpower" (or "adrenaline" or whatever). The game mechanic stays exactly the same, you change only the name. Is it dissociative?

If they even give lip service to modeling stamina then they would be fine. Daily spells aren't dissociative either. Of course the explanation is an essential aspect of whether a mechanic is dissociative or not. A paladin with a daily smite power is ok because a God can grant a daily power. A fighter with a daily crushing blow attack is not ok.

 

[Hussar]

Look. It is absolutely the case that a person can know they are reaching the end of thier ability to defend. That if another blow lands they are going down. Nothing in the characters mind is different than the players.

Really? A boxer knows EXACTLY which blow is going to knock him out? He knows that he's taken X number of hits and that the next one is guaranteed to either KO him or render him to zero hp? (Satisfied Imaro?)

I'm thinking he doesn't know that. I'm pretty sure that someone facing Mike Tyson in the early days didn't know that they were going to get knocked out within the first round.

They do not. You are equating numbers which we use to communicate status between player and character with dissociative mechanics. My character doesn't run past the enemy because he knows it's too risky. That he is close to death and if he tries he might go down. The character knows that.

How?

In 3e, since some people are insisting we be specific about edition, I could take a critical hit for the first time from an opponent and be dropped despite having full hit points. I'm not close to death. I haven't taken a single point of damage at all. Yet, I, the player, certainly know that.

If they even give lip service to modeling stamina then they would be fine. Daily spells aren't dissociative either. Of course the explanation is an essential aspect of whether a mechanic is dissociative or not. A paladin with a daily smite power is ok because a God can grant a daily power. A fighter with a daily crushing blow attack is not ok.

Sigh. So, we're back to "it's okay because it's magic"? What's wrong with Martial powers being Extraordinary in origin (a la 3e's definition of Extraordinary - not magical, but certainly beyond "normal" physics)? Is it because the rules don't specify that? Is it simply that the game designers didn't lock down a single definition of how Martial Dailies work that is causing the problem?

------------

Why aren't Combat Superiority dice also breaking your immersion? After all, I can retcon an attack so long as I have CS dice available. A creature can hit me, deal damage and I can spend dice to reduce that damage. This is 100% dissociated. The character isn't doing this, obviously, since the character would be trying to minimize damage all the time. Yet, at any point in time, I, the player, can reduce any hit, to the point where the "hit" does no damage.

How is this any different from, say, a Warlord's Healing? After all, there are ways for a fighter to reduce damage to other character's as well. The playtest Dwarven Fighter has this (although at the moment, I don't remember what it's called).

Any attack made against this character or any PC adjacent to this character can be retconned any time the player chooses.